Yesterday when we reported that Ryan Reynolds and Scarlett Johansson got married in a luxurious ecologically-conscious resort on Vancouver Island, Canada, commenter Codzilla speculated that they surely flew guests there in a private plane and made more of an impact on the environment than they were able to offset. The only way you can reach that particular island is by plane, and Ryan and Scarlett did fly their 35 guests there in seven separate seaplanes, according to the National Enquirer.
Another interesting part of this story is that guests weren’t told ahead of time where they were going:
Approximately 35 close friends and family members were instructed to gather at a specific time at Vancouver International Airport on the wedding day, the insider revealed to the Enquirer. They were not told ahead of time where they were going.
They boarded chartered seaplanes – five to six guests in each of seven planes – and were whisked to a secluded resort owned by a friend of the couple on a remote island, outside of Vancouver off the coast of British Columbia.
“She and Ryan picked an island that was inaccessible by ferry.
“The only way to get there was by seaplane.”
But despite the big hush-hush, the couple succeeded in pulling off the wedding of their dreams.
“It was an absolute gorgeous event,” concluded the insider.
[From The National Enquirer, print edition, October 13, 2008]
It sounds like Scarlet and Ryan picked that particular resort because they knew the owner, not because it was an eco-conscious resort. It’s certainly exclusive enough – rates for only three nights start at $4,458.00 USD per person.
Neither Ryan or Scarlett is particularly involved with environmental causes. Scarlett does charity work for Oxfam and has toured Rwanda, India and Sri Lanka this year. She did recently do a campaign to encourage people to recycle their cell phones.
Ryan drives a Prius though.
Scarlett and Ryan are shown on 8/11/08. Credit: Fame Pictures
Ecologically-conscious my ass!
There obviously isn’t a limit to the hypocrisy in advertising.
But it surely was luxurious, which it wouldn’t have been if they’d had to go there by rowing boats.
Don’t get the fuss here. So what? Why does it matter how the guests got there? And are they only entitled to have their wedding there if they have a documented interest in environmental issues? Is that the law now? 🙄
I’m with G on this one. The guests had to get there somehow… how would we suggest they do that? Walk? Row a boat? Ride a horse? C’mon… none of us asked OUR guests to do any of these things – they all arrived separately in their individual gas guzzling cars. Besides that… the option clearly didn’t exist for an alternate means of transportation. Apparently we’re a hypocritical bunch here today. It’s not like these two have come out and said “let’s save the world by setting an example” and then flew all those people in. Be sensible here…
**Edit – on a completely unrelated note… they’re adorable together 🙂
No doubt if they’d spent millions on a lavish wedding on an estate in Beverly Hills that was surrounded by papparazzi helicopters, half the commenters on here would complain that they’re attention whores, and why couldn’t they have a private ceremony, and blah blah blah.
They went out of their way to avoid attention, and supported a good friend’s business at the same time. Sounds pretty decent to me.
Hear hear! Whats the big deal? At least 15 people are flying in for my wedding. I’m an eco-freak but I’m not going to ask my aunt & god-mother to come all the way from Montana by covered wagon.
They are totally cute together 😀
Trust – Going by car would’ve taken a full day one-way (car, ferry, car x 8 hrs, motor boat) and would hardly be less enviromentally sound. I doubt wedding guests would want to take a week to commute by kayak.
I’m sure it was a spectacular place to get married. Well done.
😀 @ covered wagon!
I think you should insist, Bodhi, otherwise people might say you’re a ZOMG HIPPACRAT. And make ’em wear bonnets. 8)
Does anyone else think it’s weird that this island was accessible by seaplane and NOT boat? So they have a dock for seaplane traffic, but not boats? Very strange.
Other than that, I could barely care. Er, I mean ZOMG HIPPOCRATS, blah, blah. 🙄
Wow, it’s not every day that I wake up to find I’ve been selected as jackass of the moment on a gossip site.
😆 They’d LOVE it!
Kaiser, I thought that was wierd too. I mean all I know about seaplanes I learned from Tailspin, but it seems like a boat would work too.
I call BS! There are tons of ferries to Vancouver Island and many private boats as well. The boat ride over is only about 1 1/2 hours and some of the most beautiful scenery ever, plus the chance to see whales along the way. And if they did fly them over it would have only been a 10 minute plane ride…
Oooh!! We should totally make up commemorative badges (buttons?) to honour that fact Codzilla
Though to be fair I don’t think that CB was being critical of you, but giving you credit for pointing out something before it was common knowledge 😉
I would need to check but in terms of fuel, I would think that as seaplanes are propeller planes they use significantly less fuel than jets if that helps the debate in any way?
I recently did something up in BC that was sponsored by their “local” seaplane company- the same outfit as the newlyweds used, I presume. The seaplane folks were crowing about how they were the only carbon-negative airline in the world. How that works, I’m not really sure, but they said they were carbon-negative.
Codzilla, you? jackass? No way.
And this wedding sounds PERFECT to me, just lovely. No gross paps ruining it for them. They did it perfectly and it remained private. It’s one day (hopefully) and only once in your life. I would be livid if my day got ruined by loud choppers and photog wedding crashers. Getting there by seaplane sounds cool. So ‘Fantasy Island’. They should have hired a Herve Villachez lookalike and had a Ricardo Montalban lookalike handing out mixed drinks and make toasts. 🙂
i dont know why they are insisting on calling it a sea plane. we call them float planes in alaska. and it is possible that it is only accessible by float plane, as are a lot of resorts in the pacific north west, if it by a lake and the planes land on the lake. float planes are really common in these parts of the world and can get themselves way closer to shore than boats beacuse they float on the water when they dock as opposed a. being a boat that is too heavy to navigate close to shore, or b. being on a smaller boat, like a skiff or something, but whose propeller will scratch the bottom and you can never get the boat close enough to shore without needing people to jump out in a couple feet of water and they need mudboots etc, for this to happen, not to mention that all the guests were probably not into roughing a landing like that, and they had all their luggage with them which is impossible to get off a skiff without it getting wet somehow in the process.
coming from a land where this is a really common mode of travel, I totally get the reasons they used float planes.
Codzilla, I think we were all commenting on the article, not CB’s shout out to your detailed knowledge. No offense intended toward you at all – Please don’t take it that way 😳
The rocky shores may be why they didn’t use boats
That kiss is very cute….awww, they look like a couple of newlyweds 🙂
Codzilla I was honestly just trying to credit you with the idea, even though it sort of turned out to be a bad one. In this case I take responsibility for sounding like a jackass and did not mean to make you feel bad about it. But really I got the idea from sites like ecorazzi and Deceiver, which regularly point out eco-celebrities’ massive carbon footprints. In this case it wasn’t really warranted to point fingers at Reynolds and Johansson as a lot of you pointed out. Hell, they may even have used a carbon negative seaplane company – who knew?
My excuse is that I was traveling yesterday and had to come up with story ideas quickly, and this one was kind of half-baked.
Whoops, I think my jackass comment sounded way more whiny than I intended. Thanks CB, anony, and RAN for the shout outs, but they weren’t necessary. I was actually trying to be funny, but as often happens in my every day life, my overly-sarcastic tone leaves people looking at me like, “Did you REALLY means to sound like such a b*tch?”
Besides, my in-laws are in town, so maybe I was more wound up than usual.
What I find strange is that there is an eco friendly resort yet you can not access it by ferry??!! Dont think the resort oweners really thought that one through.
I would just like to point out that I LIVE on Vancouver Island and have been to Tofino many times… It is NOT only accessible by plane! You can take a ferry and drive there! *sigh*
I think the set of photos – that includes the header – of them are darned cute.
yeah they planes are definitely a huge waste of energy, but like the article says they didn’t pick it because it was an “eco resort” they picked it because they knew the owner and it was probably ridiculously nice there! so they’re not being hippocrites.